Page No.# 1/3 GAHC010016662025 2025:GAU-AS:991 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : Crl.Rev.P./23/2025 KRISHNA SHILL S/O-SHYAMAL SHILL VILL-PALLIRTOL, P. S. -JOGIGHOPA DISTRICT- BONGAIGAON, ASSAM PIN-783388 VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM AND ANR REP BY THE PP, ASSAM 2:AREN CHANDRA DAS S/O-LATE BANOMALI DAS VILL-KUMARKATA PT2 P. S. -JOGIGHOPA DISTRICT-BONGAIGAON ASSAM 78338 Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. A Z AHMED, MR. A KHALEK Advocate for the Respondent : PP, ASSAM, BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN DEV CHOUDHURY ORDER Date : 29.01.2025 Heard Mr. A.Z. Ahmed, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. P Borthakur, learned Addl. PP, Assam. The present application is filed assailing the order dated Page No.# 2/3 18.01.2025 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge (FTC), Abhayapuri in connection with Sessions Case No.27(J)/2023. The aforesaid case was conducted by the Legal Aid Counsel inasmuch as, the accused is in jail. The Legal Aid Counsel filed an application for recalling four witnesses for cross examination i.e., PW-1, Pw-3, PW-4 and PW-10. Out of these four witnesses, Pw-1 and PW-10 are the Investigating Officers in the case. The learned Legal Aid Counsel while filing the application has specifically mentioned the questions and subjects on which he want to cross examine the accused and assumes that for a just decision, the same is necessary. However, the learned Sessions Judge though allowed the prayer of further cross examination of PW-3 and PW-4, however, prayer in respect of PW-1 and PW-10 has been rejected on the ground that it did not find any merit in the prayer to recall the PW-1 and PW-10 inasmuch as that they were cross examined by the same Legal Aid Counsel. In the considered opinion of this court, aforesaid cannot be a reason for rejection of cross examination of PW-1 and PW-10 until and unless, the court concludes that the aforesaid application has been filed to delay the prosecution or to fill up the lacunae or that the question sought to be asked are not relevant/material and same is not necessary for a just decision. Mr. Borthakur, learned Addl. PP has also in his usual fairness submits that no prejudice would be caused to the prosecution if the I/O’s are called for re-cross examination. This court is of the opinion that by filing the application, the Page No.# 3/3 learned Legal Aid Counsel has raised certain vital issues and if such cross examination is allowed, not only it will help the learned trial court to arrive at a just decision but also the same will not prejudice the prosecution side. The fact also remains two witnesses has already been recalled. Accordingly the present petition stands allowed. The learned Sessions Judge shall issue summons to the PW-1 and PW- 10 who are the official/investigating officers. While passing the present order, this court has also considered that the case is being conducted by Legal Aid Counsel and the accused petitioner is still in jail. In view of the aforesaid the present petition stands disposed of. JUDGE Comparing Assistant